Shenandoah Man Pleads Guilty To Heroin Trafficking Conspiracy

SCRANTON—The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a 38-year-old Shenandoah resident connected to a large-scale heroin trafficking ring that operated in Schuylkill County during 2012 through September 2015, pleaded guilty today before Senior U.S. District Court Judge James M. Munley in Scranton.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Thomas Nestor pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin. Nestor admitted to distributing heroin and traveling with co-conspirators to obtain heroin for distribution. He was involved in distributing and possessing with intent to distribute between 400 and 700 grams, which is equivalent to between 13,000 and 23,000 retail bags of heroin,

Nestor was indicted by a federal grand jury in Scranton in September 2015, as a result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, investigators from the Pennsylvania State Police, and Shenandoah Police. Assistant U.S. Attorney Francis P. Sempa is prosecuting the case.

Judge Munley ordered a presentence investigation to be completed, and scheduled sentencing for July 28, 2016.  Nestor faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a potential maximum sentence of 40 years in prison.

This case was brought as part of a district wide initiative to combat the nationwide epidemic regarding the use and distribution of heroin.  Led by the United States Attorney’s Office, the heroin initiative targets heroin traffickers operating in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and is part of a coordinated effort among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant's educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

# # #